Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00502)

Tom wrote:

> Open-mindedness and non-dogmatism can only be taken so far.  
> 
> In order to make any comparison between ideas, some dogmatism and arrogance
> is necessary.  If one's own ideas are not considered to be better than
> everyone else's, then whoever else's ideas are considered to be superior
> would automatically be adopted as one's own.  The one who says that "there
> is no religion higher than truth" implies that he or she believes that
> there is objective truth to be sought, and that the value of all ideas is
> dependent on how they conform to this truth.  If there is no objective
> truth, education and truth-seeking have no meaning.

I think you have good ideas, Tom, and haven't really deserved the beating you
have taken here. The problem is probably the words you choose, together with
some personality dynamics within the list.

When you say, "some dogmatism and arrogance is necessary," I think I know your
point, especially after your following explanation - and it is a good one. But
I see how others might jump on you if they are looking at the words more than
the concept. Anyway, enough of my babbling on that ...

My take on dogma and creed:

There *is* a sound basis for basing ones life on. St. Paul tried to capture
this thing in his letter to my namesake, Titus. He called it the "sound
doctrine". The sound doctrine is a doctrine in the "house not made with
hands", the temple of the soul. But in every circumstance the sound doctrine
is projected into a statement or rule. Some take the rule of thumb and apply
it to every circumstance, i.e., make a dogma out of it.  St. Paul was aware of
this and advised Titus to "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and
contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

The "rule" is really a transcendental concept. Lao Tsu called it the Tao. "The
Tao which can be told is not the eternal Tao".

Should one not even attempt to make rules? If the rules are well thought out,
I think we should make the attempt. Periodically we may have to revise them or
scrap them, but they serve a vital purpose. Here is an example of how they
serve well. Let's say you are trying to teach tennis to young man or woman who
has never played. You can't very well say, "Develop your own style." They
don't have access to that yet. So you say, "Hold the racket like this." "Swing
like this." "Approach the net like this." They really appreciate you saying
something definite and not wishy-washy. Eventually, by following the rules,
they discover the Rules (capitalized). Then they can follow the Rules but
sometimes break the rules (lower case).

Every advanced teacher will start you out with rules. He or she is no teacher
if he or she doesn't. Behind the rule, spelled in the alphabet or poor words,
is a Rule, spelled in the alphabet of the soul. That is what they are finding
the technology to get to. All too often, well meaning "teachers" give an
abstract goal, but are clueless themselves about the technology to get
there. So their statements are wishy-washy. "Everybody is right. Nobody is
wrong. Do what you want."


- Titus of Auburn, California.